Carl Olson, a Roman Catholic, while writing in defence of Catholic
eschatology (which is amillennial), admitted that:
It is true that
several of the early Christian writers—notably Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Hippolytus, Methodius, Commodianus, and Lactantius—were premillennialists
who believe that Christ’s Second Coming would lead to a visible earthly reign. (Carl E. Olson, Will Catholics Be “Left Behind”? A Catholic
Critique of the Rapture and Today’s Prophecy Preachers [San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 2003], 118-19; cf. p. 143)
In a footnote for the above, we read:
The patristic scholar
J.N.D. Kelly, writing about millenarianism in the second century, notes, “The
Gnostic tendency to dissolve Christian eschatology into the myth of the soul’s
upward ascent and return to God had to be resisted. On the other hand
millenarianism, or the theory that the returned Christ would reign on earth for
a thousand years, came to find increasing support among Christian teachers. We
can observe these tendencies at work in the Apologists. Justin [Martyr], as we
have suggested, ransacks the Old Testament for proof, as against Jewish
critics, that the Messiah must have a twofold coming . . .The former coming was
enacted at the incarnation, but the latter still lies in the future. It will
take place, he suggests, at Jerusalem, where Christ will be recognized by the
Jews who dishonoured Him at the sacrifice which avails for all penitent
sinners, and where He will eat and drink with His disciples; and He will reign
there a thousand years. This millenarian, or ‘chiliastic' doctrine was widely
popular at this time” (Early Christian
Doctrines, 5th ed. [New York: Harper and Row, 1978], p. 465). Kelly goes on
to mention Barnabas, Papias, and Hippolytus. Also see Erickson, Basic Guide to Eschatology, pp. 94-97,
and mention of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactantius. (Ibid.,
118-19 n. 8; "chilastic" comes from the Greek for "thousand").
It is true that not all Christian writers in the Ante-Nicene period were
premillennial in their eschatology; notwithstanding, much of their rejection of
such a theology was due to their embrace and privileging of the “allegorical
interpretation” which Olson defines concisely as:
Interpreting
Scripture in order to find meanings that go beyond the literal interpretation
and beneath the surface narrative, making a deeper connection with the reality
of Christ. Examples include seeing the crossing of the Red Sea as a
prefigurement of baptism (see CCC 117) or understanding Haggar and Sarah as
representatives of the Old and New Covenants (see Gal 4:21-31). (Ibid., 359)
We see this in the eschatology of Origen of Alexandria and Augustine:
Origen (ca. 185-254),
a Scripture scholar from Alexandria, was a strong opponent of chiliasm. Famous
for his allegorical interpretations of Scripture, Origen located types and
foreshadowings of Christ in nearly every nook and cranny of the Old Testament.
He taught that the book of Revelation is highly symbolic and should not be interpreted
literally. While Origen’s writings were influential, the most powerful opponent
of chiliasm was Augustine. In City of God
Augustine firmly rejected millenarianism, offering instead a subtle
interpretation of history shaped by biblical eschatology but free of end time
speculation or predictions of a literal, earthly Kingdom of God. Throughout
time and history, Augustine taught, the City of God and the city of Satan war
with one another, with the outcome already decided but not yet realized. At the
end of time, at the Last Judgment, the citizens of these two cities would
finally be separated—the sheep from the goats (Mt 25:32-46). Augustine saw God
orchestrating time and history like an “unchanging conductor” (Augustine, Letter 38, 1), ordering events according
to his providential will. (Ibid., 144-45).